|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-28-04
 | | Chessical: Van der Wiel's play is very convincing, especially against such a powerful opponent. Perhaps: <12...h4!?> is worthy of consideration: 13.exd3 hxg3 14.hxg3 Qxd3 15.Qxd3 Rxd3 16.Rfb1 b6; although I would be uncomfortable as Black with the Bishops and Rooks lined up against my Q-side. In the game continuation, maybe <14...Qxe6> is possible? 15.Ng5 Qf5 16.Bb7+ Kb8 17.f3 Bh3 18.Nxh3 Qxa5 19.Bxa6 Qxa6 20.exd3 Nf5 |
|
| Apr-28-04 | | Benjamin Lau: <Perhaps: <12...h4!?> is worthy of consideration: 13.exd3 hxg3 14.hxg3 Qxd3 15.Qxd3 Rxd3 16.Rfb1 b6; although I would be uncomfortable as Black with the Bishops and Rooks lined up against my Q-side.> I would prefer white too from there, but let's see how far white can take his advantage. Chessical, maybe 17. Ng5!? in your line? (e.g. 17...f6 18. Nf7 Rh5 19. e6 maybe?) In your second continuation, is there anything wrong with 18. Be4!? |
|
Apr-29-04
| | Chessical: <Benjamin Lau> Thanks for the comments and continuations. From your post: (1) 12...h4 13.exd3 hxg3 14.hxg3 Qxd3 15.Qxd3 Rxd3 16.Rab1 b6 <17.Ng5 f6 18.Nf7 Rh5> seems to be a logical way of continuing the attack to me, although 19.e6? is forestalled by Bxe6. So, in the variation, why not <19.Nd4> hoping for the automatic 19...fxe5 which is embarrassed by 20.Nc6? (2) 14...Qxe6 15.Ng5 Qf5 16.Bb7+ Kb8 17.f3 Bh3 <18.Be4> Qxa5 19.Nxh3 Nf5 20.Bf2 d2 21.Ra2 Be7 In the above line the exchanging off the annoying N does not seem to work: 20.Bxf5 Qxf5 21.Nf4 h4 22.g4 Qe5. Black appears to be better after 18.Be4, I personally would stick with
the simpler 18.Nxh3.
Overall, the b4 sacrifice seems very effective against the N capture - but what about 9...Bxb4? Albin may have the last laugh after all ;-) |
|
| Apr-29-04 | | Benjamin Lau: You're right about 19. e6? in my line, I was hallucinating it seems and completely forgot about the bishop. Probably 19. e6?? even, it wasn't exactly an intentional sacrifice. :-) 19. Nd4 is indeed better and seems to lead to a fairly good attack despite the queens being off the board. My 18. Be4 in your second line was a typo actually, I meant is 19. Be4 acceptable? I am not too fond of exchanging off the fianchetto for the rimmish knight... If there is no tactical refutation or any other thing, I think I would like to retreat the bishop. 19...d2 seems like it can be met with 20. Ra2 but I am not 100% sure. |
|
| Apr-29-04 | | Benjamin Lau: If 9...Bxb4, maybe 10. a3 Ba5 (if on e7, it may block the knight later I think) 11. Nb3 seems good for white? Now 12. Nxa5 is undesirable and white still has Bg5 and Bf4 I guess. |
|
Apr-29-04
| | Chessical: <Benjamin Lau> After <1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.Nbd2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.b4 Bxb4> I would favour candidate moves such as: <10.Qa4 or Rb1>, looking hopefully for Rb5 to d5, and piling up pressure gaisnt the Q-side in caveman chess fashion. If <10.a3> then in devil-may-care attacking fashion: 10...Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nxe5 13.Bg2 Nxc4 |
|
| Apr-29-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Thanks Chessical. |
|
Dec-09-04
 | | mahmoudkubba: Was it the black pawn which is moving too far? or the white one?? On ranks d & e????? |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | orior: How does white win after 19..Kd7? |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | Cyphelium: <orior> On 19.- Kd7, 20. Nxd8 looks good enough, but 20. Nf7 (a fork that threatens a fork!)looks even more unpleasant. |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | aragorn69: Woww! Wild game!! |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | JohnBoy: Excellent choice for GOTD. Wonderfully conceived by VdW. |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | kevin86: A nice one! White "allows" the promotion to throw black off the trail-the defense of his king. |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | Camus: <orior> 19....Kd7 20. Nc5+ bc 21.Qb5+ c6 (20. ... Kc8 21.Bb7+) 22.Qb7+ Ke8 23.Bc6+ Nxc6 (23. ... Rd7 24.Qb8+) 24.Qxf7# |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | ajile: It's games like this that remind me why I'm an A player and not a master. Unbelievable game. Seems like everything is hanging for both sides. I didn't like the B pawn grab by black though. Opens a file on his castled king. Almost always bad to do this in a wild open tactical game. |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | Knight13: Black forgot about his king. |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | tuffy13: It's good to see Benjamin Lau back kibitzing! |
|
| Dec-09-04 | | square dance: <tuffy13> <It's good to see Benjamin Lau back kibitzing!> i think you're mistaken. his most recent post on this page is from april 29th, and i believe his last post was in may. |
|
| Dec-10-04 | | Cyphelium: <Camus> What about 19.- Kd7 20. Nc5+ bxc5 21. Qb5+ Nc6? |
|
| Jan-24-05 | | Saruman: <Cyphelium> I agree on your opinion that 19.-Kd7 <20.Nxd8> is good enough to win. Ive been trying many different lines until I got bogged down and gave up :-). |
|
| Jan-25-05 | | Cyphelium: <Saruman> Yes, unfortunately the mating lines don't work...but on the other hand they aren't needed. =) |
|
| Jan-25-05 | | acirce: <Saruman> When can we expect you back to Umeå, btw? |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | metrius: 9.b4 what a gutsy move! but i like the plan of attack by control of the white squares. |
|
| Jul-26-12 | | vinidivici: 17 what 1f 17...bxa5 |
|
| Jul-26-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <vinidivici> I have solved this! I am seeing that after 17...bxa5, White has 18. Qb5! Analysis Diagram - Position after 17...bxa5 18. Qb5!
click for larger viewWhite's attack is irresistible here! I'll get you started with one example of what I mean (you find the rest): 18...Bxe6 19. Bb7+ mating. LTJ |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
